| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Sorry but "direct translations" was included in the Rules to allow credits done in foreign languages to translate those credits into the DVDP English equivalents for use in DVDP. It was never intended to be used to allow different variations of a title within the English language, regardless of the fact that some job titles are different in the UK than they are in the U.S. This issue was never even contemplated at the time.
As usual, you are trying to "spin" the verbiage to suit your own desires.
Since I don't own but a handful of UK films, I can't be accused of spinning the verbiage to suit my own desires, but I see it the same way T!M does. 
Leaving out a valid crew credit, simply because they don't use the same term as we do, doesn't make any sense. Like it or not, The Queen's English is, in many ways, different than American English. To not allow for that difference, again, just doesn't make any sense to me. It can be allowed for. Simply by updating the crew table! This is "functional equivalents" under a different guise, that's all. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
It can be allowed for. Simply by updating the crew table! Not needed. As pointed out time and time again, the rules as written already allow these. Quote:
This is "functional equivalents" under a different guise, that's all. Indeed it is. Again, allowed per the rules. And rightly so, of course. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
It can be allowed for. Simply by updating the crew table!
Not needed. As pointed out time and time again, the rules as written already allow these.
Quote:
This is "functional equivalents" under a different guise, that's all.
Indeed it is. Again, allowed per the rules. And rightly so, of course. No, I'm sorry Tim, they are not. The Rules are crystal clear on this point: Quoting the Rules: Quote:
If someone is not credited with one of these roles (or direct translations of these roles), do not include them in the Crew section. Why we have to rehash this stuff over and over is beyond me. If the role is not listed in the crew table, it cannot be entered. It's that simple. The only exception is "direct translations" of foreign language credits. I don't agree with the current wording, however, that is what it says. | | | | Hal |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
The only exception is "direct translations" of foreign language credits. And that's what they are - it's as simple as that. Quote:
Why we have to rehash this stuff over and over is beyond me. Indeed!  | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheMadMartian: Quote:
Leaving out a valid crew credit, simply because they don't use the same term as we do, doesn't make any sense. Like it or not, The Queen's English is, in many ways, different than American English. To not allow for that difference, again, just doesn't make any sense to me. What makes sense to you doesn't really matter, however. The Rules currently prohibit entering them just like they prohibit entering Supervising Producers. | | | | Hal |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
The only exception is "direct translations" of foreign language credits.
And that's what they are - it's as simple as that. Last time I checked English is not a foreign language translation of English...no matter how much you'd like it to be. | | | | Hal |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
The Rules currently prohibit entering them No they don't. You can keep saying that, but it's just not true. The rules ALLOW entering them. As they should. Period. Quote:
Last time I checked English is not a foreign language translation of English... Yes it is. As has been documented over and over again, by lots and lots of very reputable sources, this is simply a difference between American English and British English. "Dubbing Mixer" is indeed a direct translation of "re-recording mixer" - and as such, allowed to be entered per the rules. Like it or not, but it's a translation like any other. | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: July 31, 2008 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 2,506 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
The Rules currently prohibit entering them
No they don't.
Quote:
Last time I checked English is not a foreign language translation of English...
Yes it is. As has been documented over and over again, but lots and lots of very reputable sources, this is simply a difference between American English and British English. Like it or not, but that's a "translation" like any other. Got to agree with this. While they are very similar, they are different. Just the same as French and Canadian French. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
The Rules currently prohibit entering them
No they don't.
Quote:
Last time I checked English is not a foreign language translation of English...
Yes it is. As has been documented over and over again, by lots and lots of very reputable sources, this is simply a difference between American English and British English. "Dubbing Mixer" is indeed a direct translation of "re-recording mixer" - and as such, allowed to be entered per the rules. Like it or not, but it's a translation like any other. This is just ridiculous. Using a different term for something in the same language is NOT the same thing as translating it to a foreign language. But debating anything with you is a complete waste of time, so have fun! | | | | Hal |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Using a different term for something in the same language is NOT the same thing as translating it to a foreign language. Yes it is. Again: American English <-> British English. While similar, they are different. So yes, "dubbing mixer" is the allowed-by-the-rules direct translation of "re-recording mixer". Again: we've seen plenty of documentation on that from a host of reputable sources: there is no doubt whatsoever that these people ARE the people that we're after for this credit. You, on the other hand, haven't got a leg to stand on - but don't let that stop you... Quoting hal9g: Quote:
have fun! I will!  | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting T!M: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Using a different term for something in the same language is NOT the same thing as translating it to a foreign language.
Yes it is. Again: American English <-> British English. While similar, they are different. So yes, "dubbing mixer" is the allowed-by-the-rules direct translation of "re-recording mixer". Again: we've seen plenty of documentation on that from a host of reputable sources: there is no doubt whatsoever that these people ARE the people that we're after for this credit. You, on the other hand, haven't got a leg to stand on - but don't let that stop you...
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
have fun!
I will! Look, do whatever you want, but at least have the intellectual honesty to say that's what you're doing instead of twisting and misinterpreting the Rules and claiming that they actually support what you're doing. | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 8,733 |
| | Posted: | | | | Except that I'm not the one twisting and misinterpreting the rules, Hal - that's you. I'm decidedly not doing "whatever I want" here. Saying that is a nice attempt at discrediting another user when you've apparently got nothing substantial left to say, but again: I'm merely following the rule that says that I can enter direct translations of the job labels in the crew credits table. As documented over and over again, "dubbing mixer" is the British English direct translation of the American English term "re-recording mixer". Again: I'm simply following the rule. You should really try it sometime - it even results in useful and accurate data. Who knew?  Why you keep arguing against valid data that is allowed to be entered per the rules is beyond me...  | | | | Last edited: by T!M |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | TV Series (UK) TV Season (USA) = the same thing. That's enough to convince me the languages are different and should not be treated the same. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 6,635 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lyonsden5: Quote:
TV Series (UK) TV Season (USA) = the same thing.
That's enough to convince me the languages are different and should not be treated the same. The languages are not different. They are both English. The usage of certain words of the language is different, just as it is between New York and Mississippi. Soda vs. pop vs tonic vs coke, etc. Do you consider the dialect of Texas or Alabama to be a "foreign language"? The "direct translation" verbiage in the Rules is being used to get "functional equivalents" into the database, when what is really needed is for Ken to update the crew table. And, Tim, I have no desire to keep good data out of the profile. I do however, have an interest in getting the Rules to reflect what we really want for data, not whatever you or others decide is a "direct translation". | | | | Hal | | | | Last edited: by hal9g |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Is this a good time to point out that when you install windows, Microsoft treats American and British English as different languages.
And to agree with what has gone before - look at what the intention of the rules was - in this case it was to record the same role in the database taking account of it being called by different names in different countries.
Lets all agree that we want good (and comprehensive) data in the database.. excluding the role just because it has a different name in a different country from America is just wrong.
my 2p worth. (And for Americans this is 1 cent's worth). | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,372 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Quoting lyonsden5:
Quote:
TV Series (UK) TV Season (USA) = the same thing.
That's enough to convince me the languages are different and should not be treated the same.
The languages are not different. They are both English. The usage of certain words of the language is different, just as it is between New York and Mississippi. Soda vs. pop vs tonic vs coke, etc. I understand your point but as I understand it the problem is with the translation of the words. To use your examples if the rules said we could only add "Pop" vendors I would certainly vote yes for a "Soda" vendor to be added, even though the rules specifically say "pop". Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Do you consider the dialect of Texas or Alabama to be a "foreign language"?
Texas? No. Alabama? Well....  And don't even get me going on the Georgia dialect |
|